Infernalist:AverageAmericanGuy: Agent Smiths Laugh: AverageAmericanGuy: I think Affleck could make a good Batman. He's got the acting chops. There was a lot of this kind of nerdrage when Michael farking Keaton was chosen to be the original Batman, and he turned out to be the best Batman evar.

So, what universe are you from where this is true?

The one where Kristen Stewart has an acting career. I'm not saying Affleck's the best actor evar, but in the current crop of Hollywood prettyboys, he's one of the better choices to play Batman.

Affleck would be a good director for this....Or even playing The Flash since their personalities sorta match up, but Batfleck is going to be a disaster. He's never done a single role where he's managed to be intimidating in any meaningful way.

I mean, for the love of god, look at Daredevil. That's Batman-lite and he failed miserably at it. The only reason he got picked for the role is name recognition.

Pretty much what I was driving at. The guy has all the gravitas of marshmallow fluff. He's never been able to be intimidating. There's this indelible smirk built into his demeanor that makes it all but impossible to take him seriously, much less threatening.

If by "chops" you mean "nothing in his body of work that shows he has the range or gravitas to play a character like Batman" then yes, he has chops.

I'm thinkin' that Warners wants to see Bruce Wayne as Tony Stark - they want a slightly smart-alecky, vaguely neurotic alter-ego with issues who turns into the grim, taciturn Dark Knight. Affleck would take that one and run with it, though I think he would be at least competent trying to do a Nolan-style Batman.

I maintain that the new Batman should be an older actor, able to represent the veteran Batman with his gadgets, tricks, super tech, the guile and tactical genius needed to really 'show' that this Batman can really beat Superman.

Infernalist:I maintain that the new Batman should be an older actor, able to represent the veteran Batman with his gadgets, tricks, super tech, the guile and tactical genius needed to really 'show' that this Batman can really beat Superman.

GBB:AverageAmericanGuy: I think Affleck could make a good Batman. He's got the acting chops. There was a lot of this kind of nerdrage when Michael farking Keaton was chosen to be the original Batman, and he turned out to be the best Batman evar.

Good batman, bad bruce wayne.

Afleck? Acting Chops? No. He simply plays himself in everything he does. That's not acting.

I disagree completely. Shakespeare in Love shows he can play that arrogant playboy type pretty well, granted that's a long time ago, but he hasn't been in anything like that since. I'd say his Batman is the challenge, not his Bruce

Karl Urban would be a fantastic Batman. The man has gravitas, he can be brutally intimidating, and he is far from afraid of a physical role. He also just has the look to be Bruce Wayne. I would point to his performances in RED, Judge Dredd, Chronicles of Riddick and The LotR as my evidence.

Infernalist:salvador.hardin: You folks do realize that Daredevil was awful for plenty of non-Affleck related reasons right? The screenwriter/director most importantly.

The Fantastic Four movies were terrible, but that didn't stop Chris Evans from playing a serviceable Captain America.

No, I agree completely. DD was full of bad from all sides and every aspect, aside from Duncan as the Kingpin. And Coolio.

That said, he still stunk to high heaven as DD and pretty much everyone is in agreement on that.

So, at the end of the day, if you thought his portrayal of DD was an amazing display and were enthralled by his performance, then I guess you have the right to say that you think he'll be good as Batfleck.

Meanwhile, most of us look at his DD performance and mourn the reality of Batfleck.

I don't think Affleck's performance in a terrible movie 10 years ago (when most superhero movies were terrible) has ass all to do with his performance in the next. That's why I brought up the analogous situation of Chris Evans.

Now if you thought Chris Evans performance in Fantastic Four was nothing short of exceptional, then you are free to do so.

The rest of us realize that scripts and directors have a large influence on an actor's performance in a given role.

Hobodeluxe:Infernalist: Oh yeah, that bears repeating: This version of Superman's universe doesn't have Kryptonite in it.

sure it does. no one has discovered it yet is all. that's probably what Luthor does. And Bats after doing research on Supes and finally deciding they're on the same side will probably save his life when Luthor tries to kill him with the Kryptonite.

They showed Kryptonite in Man of Steel, after a fashion. The Kryptonian atmosphere had ill effects on Kal-el.

salvador.hardin:Infernalist: salvador.hardin: You folks do realize that Daredevil was awful for plenty of non-Affleck related reasons right? The screenwriter/director most importantly.

The Fantastic Four movies were terrible, but that didn't stop Chris Evans from playing a serviceable Captain America.

No, I agree completely. DD was full of bad from all sides and every aspect, aside from Duncan as the Kingpin. And Coolio.

That said, he still stunk to high heaven as DD and pretty much everyone is in agreement on that.

So, at the end of the day, if you thought his portrayal of DD was an amazing display and were enthralled by his performance, then I guess you have the right to say that you think he'll be good as Batfleck.

Meanwhile, most of us look at his DD performance and mourn the reality of Batfleck.

I don't think Affleck's performance in a terrible movie 10 years ago (when most superhero movies were terrible) has ass all to do with his performance in the next. That's why I brought up the analogous situation of Chris Evans.

Now if you thought Chris Evans performance in Fantastic Four was nothing short of exceptional, then you are free to do so.

The rest of us realize that scripts and directors have a large influence on an actor's performance in a given role.

I think Evans did great in his role as Johnny Storm. He fit the role perfectly and stood out of a bad movie full of bad acting. And I think that's the general consensus.

Meanwhile, the general consensus on DD was that it was a bad movie and Batfleck did nothing good in that movie to help redeem it. He was just more bad in a sea of bad.

And what I'm gathering from your post is that we're being too quick to disregard him and that he might do good in the role...

If that's the case, and you do think that he might be good in the role, then please...Point to something...anything in his resume of movies that indicates that he can be intimidating, ominous, threatening, super-serious and obsessive to the point of mental illness. Show me a role where he melts into the character and isn't just Ben Affleck pretending to be someone else. Give us something to counter the bad taste of his role of DD, who is basically Marvel's version of Batman.

I don't get the Ben Affleck rage. I could have only been happier if Jon Hamm was Batman. They obviously aren't going with an older Batman. They can still embrace aspects of The Dark Knight Returns even with Bruce not being an old man. The theme could still be there. People really need to get over it. These same people probably had a conniption fit when Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker, and look how that turned out. Affleck will be a fantastic Supes, Bryan Cranston will be a fantastic Luthor, and the movie is going to be a monolithic blockbuster of epic proportions.

ParagonComplex:I don't get the Ben Affleck rage. I could have only been happier if Jon Hamm was Batman. They obviously aren't going with an older Batman. They can still embrace aspects of The Dark Knight Returns even with Bruce not being an old man. The theme could still be there. People really need to get over it. These same people probably had a conniption fit when Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker, and look how that turned out. Affleck will be a fantastic Supes, Bryan Cranston will be a fantastic Luthor, and the movie is going to be a monolithic blockbuster of epic proportions.

lol

Here:

"By playing a superhero in Daredevil, I have inoculated myself from ever playing another superhero... Wearing a costume was a source of humiliation for me and something I wouldn't want to do again soon."

That's the guy you want headlining your biggest Superhero movie ever, DC. A guy who sees it as a humiliation. Well done.

Infernalist:"By playing a superhero in Daredevil, I have inoculated myself from ever playing another superhero... Wearing a costume was a source of humiliation for me and something I wouldn't want to do again soon."

That's the guy you want headlining your biggest Superhero movie ever, DC. A guy who sees it as a humiliation. Well done.

People don't change their minds. Ever. It doesn't happen. We're born with a fixed opinion. Excruciating development by working with FOX and public ridicule over a trash movie he had no control about wouldn't make him react that way. Clearly no. Also, hyperbole doesn't exist.

rocky_howard:Infernalist: "By playing a superhero in Daredevil, I have inoculated myself from ever playing another superhero... Wearing a costume was a source of humiliation for me and something I wouldn't want to do again soon."

That's the guy you want headlining your biggest Superhero movie ever, DC. A guy who sees it as a humiliation. Well done.

People don't change their minds. Ever. It doesn't happen. We're born with a fixed opinion. Excruciating development by working with FOX and public ridicule over a trash movie he had no control about wouldn't make him react that way. Clearly no. Also, hyperbole doesn't exist.

In short words: That argument is shiat.

I'm sure you have a quote of him that would give you reason to think that he's changed his mind. Something where he's waxing eloquent over how much fun it was for him to do Daredevil and how it opened his eyes to all manner of new means of expression and emoting...

Something? Anything other than the millions of dollars they shoved in his face?

Infernalist:I'm sure you have a quote of him that would give you reason to think that he's changed his mind. Something where he's waxing eloquent over how much fun it was for him to do Daredevil and how it opened his eyes to all manner of new means of expression and emoting...

Something? Anything other than the millions of dollars they shoved in his face?

Yeah, because that's what I said at all...

What I meant, since you clearly have the brain capacity to understand: He felt the Daredevil experience was bad and swore off the genre for the time being. Keyword: For the time being. He didn't say never, he said he didn't want to do it soon. And for good reason, since it clearly stunk him.

Now that fourteen years have passed, yeah, FOURTEEN YEARS (y'know, almost the textbook definition for "not soon"), he got an offer to play a superhero and he decided to take it. Surely the money was a factor, but you'd have to be retarded to think it was the only or even main factor. He probably has a deal to direct a superhero movie after this one. Which is something I could see him doing. But hey, whatever you say brah.

blackminded:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Affleck is a great choice for Batman... Lets be honest the bar is so low right now anyway after Bale's horrendous "cookie monster" version.

I haven't been paying attention: have we reached Peak Nolan?

Do you know that old cardboard box in the corner of your garage or basement? That one you haven't opened in years, are sure it holds nothing but spider eggs, dust, and mostly useless junk... plus some odd or sentimental item that makes you not want to throw it out? And you know how no matter how much you try to ignore it, that box always ends up getting in your way somehow?

The corner of the internet that pans the Nolan films solely because of Bale's voice is exactly like that box.

rocky_howard:Infernalist: I'm sure you have a quote of him that would give you reason to think that he's changed his mind. Something where he's waxing eloquent over how much fun it was for him to do Daredevil and how it opened his eyes to all manner of new means of expression and emoting...

Something? Anything other than the millions of dollars they shoved in his face?

Yeah, because that's what I said at all...

What I meant, since you clearly have the brain capacity to understand: He felt the Daredevil experience was bad and swore off the genre for the time being. Keyword: For the time being. He didn't say never, he said he didn't want to do it soon. And for good reason, since it clearly stunk him.

Now that fourteen years have passed, yeah, FOURTEEN YEARS (y'know, almost the textbook definition for "not soon"), he got an offer to play a superhero and he decided to take it. Surely the money was a factor, but you'd have to be retarded to think it was the only or even main factor. He probably has a deal to direct a superhero movie after this one. Which is something I could see him doing. But hey, whatever you say brah.

I'd bet good money that part of the deal included first dibs on directing a full length Batman flick if the Man of Steel 2 and JLA movies do good.

Affleck's a good enough director (and noted comic fan) to make a good Batman flick. I'm willing to wait to see how his acting pans out.

It's like they got their casting sheets mixed up. Have Cranston as Batman and Affleck as Luthor, and there'd be a lot less confusion. As it is, it sounds like the studio wants a much more kid-friendly Batman who'll be a better choice for Happy Meal promotions than Burton's or Nolan's visions were.

Ess_Aytch:Affleck is going to be a great Batman, and everyone on the internet who is biatching about the casting will conveniently forget that when they're falling over themselves to rant about how great he is.

Everyone on this thread is missing the point... Cranston has signed on for SIX to TEN movies!

Why the FARK do we need 6-10 new batman/superman movies? Do we even need that many more superhero movies (of any kind)? They're formulaic, childish trash.

/hate this current hollywood model that is hell-bent on riding any and all ideas that might make money straight into the ground regardless of story quality. We get it, evil villains need to be defeated by some wannabe vigilante(s).

AtlanticCoast63:If by "chops" you mean "nothing in his body of work that shows he has the range or gravitas to play a character like Batman" then yes, he has chops.

I'm thinkin' that Warners wants to see Bruce Wayne as Tony Stark - they want a slightly smart-alecky, vaguely neurotic alter-ego with issues who turns into the grim, taciturn Dark Knight. Affleck would take that one and run with it, though I think he would be at least competent trying to do a Nolan-style Batman.

I was always irritated that Downy Jr. played Stark too much like Bruce Wayne.